Skip to main content
Log in

Internet Advertising, Game Theory and Consumer Welfare

  • Published:
Electronic Commerce Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to consider the implications of Internet advertising, for prospective consumer welfare gains/losses. The implications of imperfect information among buyers are discussed to highlight the role of intermediaries and search agents in enhancing consumer welfare in a world of complex products and uncertainty. The argument demonstrates that despite possessing welfare enhancing potential the retailing of complex products on the Internet increases the scope for price discrimination among sellers. Hence, buyers may pay different prices for the same product/services. The paper shows how “agents” may restrict this type of market failure if they possess the ability to search all databases. That the Internet intrinsically exhibits welfare enhancing and reducing characteristic a game model is develop to show how entry of new sellers may proceed or be checked by incumbents.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Admati, A. and M. Perry. (1987). “Strategic Delay in Bargaining.” Review of Economic Studies 54, 345–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, J. and E. Brynjolfsson. (1997). “In search of friction-free markets: An exploratory analysis of prices for books, CDs and software sold on the Internet.” In Proceedings of the 25th Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, Alexandria, VA.

  • Bakos, Y. (1998). “Internet Economics: The Emerging Role of Electronic Marketplaces on the Internet.” Communications of the ACM 4(8), 35–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binmore, K. (1985). “Bargaining and Coalitions.” In A.E. Roth (ed.), Game Theoretic Models of Bargaining. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, K. and L. Samulson. (1987). “Bargaining with Two-Sided Incomplete Information: An Infinite.” Comanor, W. and T.Wilson. (1967). “Advertising, Market Structure and Performance”. Review of Economics and Statistics 49, 423–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, J.W. (1977). Oligopoly Theory. Cambridge University Press.

  • Hotelling, H. (1929). “Stability in Competition.” Economic Journal 39, 41–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • IAB, Internet Advertising Revenue More than Double in 1998-Fourth Quarter Exceeds $600 Million, $1.92 Billion Reported for 1998. http://www.iab.net/news/content/1998results.html (1999).

  • Kreps, D. (1990). A Course in Microeconomic Theory, Chapters 3 and 16. Harvester.

  • Kreps, D. (1991). Game Theory and Economic Modelling. Oxford University Press.

  • Kreps D. and R. Wilson (1982). “Reputation and Imperfect Information.” Journal of Economic Theory 27, 253–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambin, J. (1976). Advertising, Competition and Market Conduct in Oligopoly over Time. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ling, M. (1998). “Advertising Resources Over Time: A Strategic & Empirical Analysis.” Knowledge Transfer-An International Journal 1(1), 19–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ling, M. and K. Lawler. (1999). “Internet Advertising, Internet Retail Price Strategies and Search Costs.” In Proceedings of Business and Economics Society International (B&ESI) Conference, Canary Island, Spain.

  • Ling, M., K. Lawler, A. Moscardini, and N. McBain. (1997). “Economics of Advertising: Emerging Functions of Internet Advertising.” In Proceedings of First Berlin Internet Workshop, Berlin, Germany.

  • Ling, M., K. Lawler, A. Moscardini, and N. McBain. (1999). “Economics of Advertising: Emerging Functions of Internet Advertising.” Netnomics 1, 127–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milgrom, P. (1987). “Auction Theory.” In T. Bewley (ed.), Advances in Economic Theory, Fifth World Congress, Econometric Society Monographs, Vol. 12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myerson, R. (1981). “Optimal Auction Design.” Mathematics of Operations Research 6, 58–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nairn, G. (1999). “A Vision of “Virtual Commerce” Communities.” Financial Times, FT-IT Review 2, 1 January.

  • Nelson, P. (1978). “Advertising as Information once More.” In D.G. Tuerck (ed.), Issues in Advertising. Washington, DC: American Institute for Public Policy Research, pp. 133–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, P. (1974). “Advertising as Information.” Journal of Political Economy 81, 729–754.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley, J. and W. Samuelson. (1981). “Optimal Auctions.” American Economic Review 7, 381–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmalensee, R. (1972). The Economics of Advertising. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, C. (1989). Auctions: The Social Construction of Value. London: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. and D. Levin. (1994). “Equilibrium in Auctions with Entry.” American Economic Review 84, 585–599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. and D. Levin. (1996). “Optimal Reservation Prices in Auctions.” Economic Journal 106, 1271–1283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, G. (1961). “The Economics of Information.” Journal of Political Economy 72, 213–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor R. (1999). “Sales Growth Drives Internet Stocks.” Financial Times 38, 28 January.

  • Telser, L. (1964). “Advertising and Competition.” Journal of Political Economy 72, 537–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tett G. (1999). “World Stock Market: Fund Piles Weight.” Financial Times.

  • Vulkan, N. (1999). “Economic Implications of Agent Technology and E-commerce.” Economic Journal 109, 67–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yovovich, B. (1995). “Smart Agents do the Shopping.” Advertising Age 8, 31 July.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ling, M.Ch., Lawler, K. Internet Advertising, Game Theory and Consumer Welfare. Electronic Commerce Research 1, 169–181 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011535915274

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011535915274

Navigation